Idaho news. (Blackfoot, Idaho) 1887-1891, 1887-11-05
which will demand a reversal of the judy


state, and in opposition to motion iot
writ of error. To warrant the issuance OF
a writ il must appear, he said, from the
record. first. that there is n federal question
involved, and second, that such question
was raised and decided in the state court
He was not as well informed rs he would ,
like TO be with regard 10 the exact points
upon which the counsel for petitioners relied. I
In the first part of his argument MIR
Tucker planted himself squarely upon the /
rights which belonged to his client under
the fourteenth amendment, but IN the
latter part he changed the ground slightly
and insisted that the first ten amendments
were declarations of individual rights and
I then they were all comprised in the pro-
visions of the fourteenth amendment. The
/ attorney general opposed this view, and
| said so far rs the petitioners rely upon any
| thing contained in those amendments, they
| can have no standing in this court, The
fourteenth amendment is equally foreign
to any right, privilege or immunity
/ here claimed by the petitioners Inc
record will show that the complaint is not
| that the state has made, or is enforcing,
| law which deprives the petitioners OF any
of the privileges or immunities guaranteed
by that section, but that they are de-
4 priyed of rights by an erroneous construc~
ton of law, placed upon it by the trial
court of the state. The petitioners did not
claim in the supreme court of the state
that the Illinois act of 1874 was repugnant
to the constitution, treaties or laws OF the
United States, nor that the authority Of
the court was exercised under II.
but that the act was cOnstlt 1tlonal
and valid, and the court exercised its power
in violation of that law. Petitioners were
IL = ~ IS stnta npNAr tina
laws of the state, and that constitutes due
process of law. 1t is not material that this
or another court might have ruled
differently under the law. Due process Of
law means the law of the land.
Mr.. Hunt then cited the case OF Presser
vs.. the state of Illinois, re-
garding the militia law of the
state. This decision forecloses and
bars out the contention 'of counsel
that the rights contemplated in the lan-
guage of the first ten amendments were all
included in the fourteenth amendment, aud
extended especial guarantees and immunl-
ties to citizens of the United States. lie
} then turned his attention TO the constitu-
tional provision that mo state shall deny
to any person the equal protection OF the
laws" and submitted to the court that
the equal protection of the laws" and
! privileges anu NphNpAAPANNNN
by The amendment were only those for
) whose enforcement congress had provided
, by subsequent legislation, and, having
acted. congress has exhausted the subject
J until it chooses to take it up again.
: Turning to the composition of the jury
, in the trial court, the attorney general said
{ that he did not see how the personnel OF
J the Jury which tried the petitioners in this
case could properly be submitted to the
: court or considered by it in the present
proceeding. This inquiry must be made
I as TO the constitutionality Of the jury law
of the state of Illinois, and not as to how o
{ state court may have construed that law.
| The record showed, he believed, that on
| tile challenge of one juror suggestion was
| made by one Of the counsel
Z for the prise that there was
provision to the constitution
!, of Illinois, as we'll as in the constitution Of
the United States, guaranteeing to every
> person trial By an impartial jury. The
! person upon whose challenge that sugges-
$ ton was made did not finally sit in the
Jury that tried the case. He would submit
I standing in court suggestion
n or objection be made with regard to . juror
4 who actually tried the case, or that by rea-
y son Of exhaustion of their peremptory chal-
a lenge the petitioners were compelled to
= accept an incompetent juror and were there
2 by irreparably damaged. This question
l was never raised with regard to any juror
, who did actually sit in that case
u Chief Jus ice-Was it not raised in the
q Sanford case? | think it is shown in the
i memorandum which we have that it was
!. raised as to Sanford.
3 Mr.. Grinnell (nterrupting)--If the court
u please the memorandum is not fair tran.
y script OF the record.
q After some colloquy the chief justice
70 directed that all parts Of the record relating
oI to the question thus raised should be
20 printed and submitted to the court to,
morrow.
Attorney General Hunt, resuming once
- more, referred to the fact that the jury Inv
" of Illinois was not attacked by counsel on
~ the other side in the state supreme court
70 They stated there, he said, that they
II did not think il necessary to attack thC
~ constitutionality of the law because it may
9, be given construction which would make
- it understandable. Mr.. Hunt believed il
le to be well settled and established that this
AZ court will not review the decision Of the
4 supreme court of a state as to tho construc-
y ton to be given to its own constitution and
VI y its own laws. He then spoke for some tint
= of the Jury law, which, he said.
y has been common law all over the United
States and always The law was substan-
~ TALLY the same as those Of New York
u Michigan, Arkansas, Colorado and Ne
% braska. Recent changes in the jury law
~ Of the states had for their purpose and OBJ
~ iect the procurement Of better class, and
- q more intelligent class, of men as jurors
20 "Is it possible, " tho attorney general asked
y "that the states are to be so bound by
~ the federal constitution that they Canno
va change their jury laws in accordance will
"a the changing conditions of their social ant
~ political life lie hoped the court woult
- maturely consider the far-reaching conse
~ quences Of the construction whicl
the petitioners desired to have giyer
~ to the fourteenth amendment A
~ TO the alleged Unreasonable scare
and seizure" Mr.. Hunt said he would lik
10 know how criminals instruments q
crime could legally be taken from him. Fl
=, knew of no process by which it could
q. done if they were his own. The questio
~ for the court, however, was not How wa
=, possession Of these things obtained?" bu
q rather, "What do they proye?" TIL
N Kerr, brought back from South Americ
r without extradition. The court held tha
m the question was not, "How did you ge
n here?' but, Are you guilty?' Tn
i attorney general then took up the case o
the prisoners Fielden and Spies, and sal
of he understood it would be urged b
re- counsel on the other side that they bein
n oreigners-Fielden an Englishman an
10 Spies German-were protected by treatit
~ between the United States and their n
Z | gpeciiye governments: that they shout